Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Differences in Resources and Negotiation Among Highly Motivated Physician-Scientists

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Resources, including space, equipment, funding, personnel, and protected time, are essential in academic medical careers. Negotiation often plays a key role in the distribution of these resources.

OBJECTIVE

This study explored gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes in a sample of career development awardees.

DESIGN

Postal survey of a cohort of 1,708 clinician-researchers with responses from 1,275 (75 % response rate).

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers who received NIH K08 or K23 awards between 2006 and 2009.

MAIN MEASURES

We analyzed gender differences in resources, negotiation behaviors, and negotiation outcomes, using regression models adjusted for race, K award type, K award year, degree, academic rank, specialty, and institutional funding.

KEY RESULTS

Over one-fifth of respondents reported inadequate access to research space and one-third had asked for increased space or equipment. Perceived adequacy of these physical resources did not differ significantly by gender, but a higher proportion of women reported inadequate access to grants administrators (34.8 %) and statistical support (49.9 %) than men (26.9 %; p = 0.002 and 43.4 %; p = 0.025, respectively). Women were more likely to have asked for reduction in clinical hours (24.1 % vs. 19.3 %; p = 0.02) and to have raised concerns about unfair treatment (50.2 % vs. 38.2 %; p < 0.001). Overall, 42.9 % of women and 35.9 % of men asked for a raise in the two years preceding the survey (p = 0.09), and among those who had asked for increased resources, the likelihood that the request was granted did not differ significantly by gender.

CONCLUSION

Many career development award recipients report resource needs and negotiate for increased resources. Gender differences in perceived access to research support personnel exist even in this select cohort of K awardees. Institutions should provide appropriate training in negotiation and ensure adequate and equitable distribution of resources to promote academic success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Hopkins N. A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT: how a committee on women faculty came to be established by the dean of the school of science, what the committee and the dean learned and accomplished, and recommendations for the future. MIT Fac News. 1999;11:1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109. Accessed July 17, 2014.

  3. Sarfaty S, Kolb D, Barnett R, et al. Negotiation in academic medicine: a necessary career skill. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16:235–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Babcock L, Laschever S. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sambuco D, Dabrowska A, Decastro R, et al. Negotiation in academic medicine: narratives of faculty researchers and their mentors. Acad Med. 2013;88:505–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kolb DM. Her Place At the Table. A Consideration of Gender Issues in Negotiation (Program on Negotiation working paper series). 1st ed. Harvard Law School: Boston, MA; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stuhlmacher A, Walters A. Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Pers Psychol. 1999;52:623–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bowles H, McGinn K. Gender in job negotiations: A two-level game. Negot J. 2008;24:393–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stevens CK, Bavetta AG, Gist ME. Gender differences in the acquisition of salary negotiation skills: the role of goals, self-efficacy, and perceived control. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78:723–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL. Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol Sci. 2008;19:268–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Anastakis DJ. Negotiation skills for physicians. Am J Surg. 2003;185:74–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Penguin; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Principal Investigators Association. NIH career development (K) awards: Taking your research career to new heights. [Internet Webinar]. Available at: www.principalinvestigators.org/product/nih_career_development_k_awards. Accessed July 17, 2014.

  14. Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jagsi R, DeCastro R, Griffith KA, et al. Similarities and differences in the career trajectories of male and female career development award recipients. Acad Med. 2011;86:1415–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jagsi R, Griffith KA, Stewart A, et al. Gender differences in the salaries of physician researchers. JAMA. 2012;307:2410–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jolliff L, Leadley J, Coakley E, Sloane RA. Women in U.S. Academic Medicine Statistics and Benchmarking Report 2011–2012 [Internet]. Available at: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Women %20in %20U %20S %20 %20Academic %20Medicine %20Statistics %20and %20Benchmarking %20Report %202011-20123.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2014.

  19. Carnes M, Morrissey C, Geller SE. Women’s health and women’s leadership in academic medicine: hitting the same glass ceiling? J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17:1453–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jagsi R, Guancial EA, Worobey CC, et al. The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature–a 35-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:281–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sidhu R, Rajashekhar P, Lavin VL, et al. The gender imbalance in academic medicine: a study of female authorship in the United Kingdom. J R Soc Med. 2009;102:337–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:804–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science. 2008;322:1472–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morton MJ, Sonnad SS. Women on professional society and journal editorial boards. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99:764–71.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Amrein K, Langmann A, Fahrleitner-Pammer A, Pieber TR, Zollner-Schwetz I. Women underrepresented on editorial boards of 60 major medical journals. Gend Med. 2011;8:378–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kennedy BL, Lin Y, Dickstein LJ. Women on the editorial boards of major journals. Acad Med. 2001;76:849–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dickersin K, Fredman L, Flegal KM, Scott J, Crawley B. Female editorship is an important indicator of gender imbalance. J R Soc Med. 2010;103:5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mansour AM, Shields CL, Maalouf FC, et al. Five-decade profile of women in leadership positions at ophthalmic publications. Arch Ophthalmol. 2012;130:1441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nonnemaker L. Women physicians in academic medicine: new insights from cohort studies. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:399–405.

  30. Jolly S, Griffith KA, DeCastro R, et al. Gender differences in domestic labor performed by high-achieving young physician-researchers. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:344–53.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jagsi R, Griffin KA, Stewart A, et al. Gender differences in salary in a recent cohort of early-career physician-researchers. Acad Med. 2013;88:1689–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carr PL, Ash AS, Friedman RH, et al. Faculty perceptions of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in academic medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:889–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baldwin DC Jr, Daugherty SR, Rowley BD. Residents’ and medical students’ reports of sexual harassment and discrimination. Acad Med. 1996;71(10 Suppl):S25–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Stratton TD, McLaughlin MA, Witte FM, Fosson SE, Nora LM. Does students’ exposure to gender discrimination and sexual harassment in medical school affect specialty choice and residency program selection? Acad Med. 2005;80:400–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the K award recipients who took the time to participate in this study. Dr. Jagsi had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Funding/Support

This work was supported by Grant 5 R01 HL101997-04 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Dr. Jagsi. Dr. Ubel was also supported by grants from the NIH and by a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Investigator Award in Health Policy Research. The funding agency played no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Ethical Review Board

This study was approved by the University of Michigan institutional review board.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Emma Holliday MD

  2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, UHB2C490, SPC 5010; 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-5010, USA

    Rochelle De Castro MS & Reshma Jagsi MD, DPhil

  3. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Peter Ubel MD

  4. Biostatistics Unit, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Kent A Griffith MS

  5. Department of Psychology and Women’s Studies Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Abigail Stewart PhD

Authors
  1. Emma Holliday MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kent A Griffith MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rochelle De Castro MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abigail Stewart PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Ubel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Reshma Jagsi MD, DPhil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reshma Jagsi MD, DPhil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holliday, E., Griffith, K.A., De Castro, R. et al. Gender Differences in Resources and Negotiation Among Highly Motivated Physician-Scientists. J GEN INTERN MED 30, 401–407 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2988-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-2988-5

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation